Ukrainian evangelicals and "Russian world"

 

Voice of the Ukrainian Church. My interview to Anna Skudarnova

 

What is the ideology of the “Russian world” and how is it affecting evangelical churches in Russia today?

 

The ideology of the “Russian world” is a mixture of pseudo-Christianity (the idea of ​​“Holy Rus'”, which opposes the sinful West and saves the whole world from Antichrist), imperialism (understanding of Moscow as the Third Rome and colonialist claims to neighboring territories) and Soviet mythology (the cult of “victory”, the ideas of “three fraternal peoples”, the pathos of the world revolution). Evangelical churches in Russia are faced with a choice: either remain faithful to their Christian identity and suffer for it, or follow the path of Russian Orthodoxy - isolate themselves from world Christianity, identify with state policy and hope that compromises with faith and conscience will ensure relative safety and comfort. The majority follows the second path - they say that they have nothing in common with the Americans and Europeans, that they have a special spiritual and civilizational path, that they are ready to justify and sanctify the construction of the “Russian world.”

 

What is collective responsibility? Do we see this in the Bible? How does this apply to ordinary Russians, and by extension, Russian Christians today? 

We can find many biblical texts about the responsibility of the entire nation for the sins of their fathers or kings (Ezra 9-10, Nehemiah 9, Daniel 9, 1 Kings 8). These texts say that the priests are responsible along with all the people. This means that they must warn the people about the consequences of sinful choices, repent with the people, and intercede for the people before God. If they were silent or justified wickedness, God will ask them first (Ezek. 3)

 

Is painting this as “Putin’s war” and separating the actions of the Russian government completely from the Russian people an accurate portrayal of modern-day Russia? Are Russian victims of their government or its supporters? 

The Russian people are both victims and accomplices of the crimes of the Putin regime. There is always a choice - to be on the side of good or evil. Those conscripted to Russian army may refuse to go to war - and pay for this choice with fines, imprisonment, and deprivation of rights. Alas, most of them fear persecution from the state or society more than God’s judgment and their own conscience for the murder of innocent Ukrainians. The Russian state intimidates people, does everything possible through propaganda and violence to make people realize that they are slaves of the “Russian world.” But the internal choice remains with everyone.

 

What about the idea of ​​“good Russians” and “peaceful Russians” – what evidence have you seen for or against their existence inside of Russia? Do you think there is an Evangelical remnant that is against Russia’s actions but remains quiet? Is there any evidence for how large this group could be and what percentage they represent of Evangelical Christians in Russia?

 

There are very few people in Russia who are capable of publicly disagreeing with state policy and the opinion of the majority. Some Russian people are good enough because they are silent and do not shout in favor of evil. They see no chance of change, so they try not to attract attention to themselves. Representatives of the “holy remnant” often quote these words: “Therefore the prudent keep quiet in such times, for the times are evil” (Amos 5:13).

 

 

How do you see the biblical concept of “loving your enemy” misapplied to Ukrainians and Russians? What double standards do you see? What is a practical, biblical ethics of responding to our enemies while also balancing Christian love?

 

Loving your enemy does not mean letting him do whatever he wants. If it is possible to stop an enemy who has come to your home with weapons, love does not prevent you from doing so. Moreover, love requires doing everything possible to stop the enemy in his evil path before he destroys more innocent people and himself. Thus love can be expressed in neutralizing the enemy with a shot, and then providing him with medical attention. And after he understands the gravity of the crime committed and ceases to be dangerous to others and himself, it will be possible to talk with him about forgiveness and reconciliation. Ukrainians have every right to defend themselves from aggressors. They love, first of all, their families and neighbors. Love always has priorities. Ukrainians cannot be asked to love unrepentant murderers more than they love their suffering family members.

 

Why is it unhelpful and untimely for Westerners to call for reconciliation between Ukraine and Russia? Between Russian Christians and Ukrainian Christians? What should true reconciliation look like? What is a more helpful and timely message for Westerners to share?

 

There is a time for everything. There is a logical and moral order: cessation of hostilities, restoration of justice, reparations, restoration of relationships, repentance, forgiveness, reconciliation. All this takes many years, steps, decisions and efforts. 

 

Why is neutrally on the part of Western Christians unhelpful? Not only when addressing Russia/Ukraine, but more specifically in addressing Russian and Ukrainian Christians?

 

Neutrality is the most shameful position, according to which good and evil are very relative and there is no need to figure out who is on which side. There are simple facts: Russia attacked Ukraine and has been waging a vile fratricidal war for more than ten years. Russia not only commits evil, Russia deliberately choose the side of evil. You can call it relative (although I am not afraid to call this evil absolute), but it is evil. Ukraine cannot be called evil, even relatively. So I see Russia’s war against Ukraine as a war of absolute evil against relative good. Some are fighting on foreign soil to kill more Ukrainians. And others defend their land to save the lives of their families and their people. Isn't this difference obvious?

Some Christians pray for the success of aggression. And others are for salvation from aggressors. How can you put them on the same bench and calm them down with “peacemaking” from a position of “neutrality”? These are two different churches.